Tom Cross KC and Zoe Gannon acted for the Intervener, the Free Speech Union, in The King (on the application of The University of Sussex) and The Office for Students and The Free Speech Union Ltd [2026] EWHC 984 (Admin). Following the handing-down of the Judgment in which the University of Sussex had been successful in its Judicial Review, the University sought to recover costs including from the Intervener. The Intervener successfully resisted the application.
In refusing the costs application, Lieven LJ provided useful guidance and clarity as to the circumstances in which an Intervener can expect successfully to resist such an application under the relevant statutory provisions. Lieven J commented that, in the case at hand, “it was important and of “significant assistance” to the Court to have the FSU’s submissions on the breadth of the issue and the arguments that could arise under Article 10 ECHR.” She explained further that if submissions of an Intervener are not accepted by a Court, that is not determinative: the Court will consider whether submissions were proportionate and focused, whether an Intervener has behaved reasonably, and the wider public interest in the matter raised and considered.
The full judgment can be found here.
Tom Cross KC and Zoe Gannon acted for the intervener, the Free Speech Union.
